As the kids say: what part of "Bill Clinton supports Mexico" did the secretary of governance not understand? Where did the fury come from? Last saturday, the ex-president of the United States came out in favor of "Plan Mexico" against drug traffickers, designed for Mexico "so that no Mexican thinks that we are interfering in their affairs or trying to determine their future". And yes, he said that neither our country nor any other can win the war alone. The next day, Sunday, Clinton defended Mexico before an audience on Univision: "It's not a failed state ... Felipe Calderón has made a great effort to defend the society from the drug traffickers...But that same Sunday, a furious Fernando Gómez Mont "responded" to Clinton: "We need them to accept the shame of collecting the weapons with which Mexicans in this country are assassinated, and the invoice of their money, of their consumer market, that foments and motivates violent activity in Mexico" he said. What's that about? Did he read the entire declaration of Clinton, or does he know something that rest of us didn't know or didn't understand.It was a bizarre way of framing the idea that the US needs to invest more in Mexico's security, given that Colombia's security problems and its relationship with the US are vastly different than Mexico. Nonetheless, I can't help but agree that Gómez Mont's reaction, even if its negativity was justifiable, was needlessly angry.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Odd Declaration, Odd Reaction
Bill Clinton caused a minor stir when he said this weekend that Mexico needed a "Plan Mexico" to enable the US and its southern neighbor to attack organized crime together. Fernando Gómez Mont caused a still minor but rather larger stir when he reacted with indignation to Clinton's opinion. Baja Reserva has more: